The effects of classroom-based dynamic seating interventions on academic outcomes in youth: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this systematic review was to synthesize and evaluate the literature on the effects of classroom-based dynamic seating interventions on academic-related outcomes, among school-aged children and adolescents. A secondary aim was to examine intervention effects on students' sedentary behavior and physical activity levels. In September 2017, four electronic databases (PsycINFO, PubMed, SPORTDiscus, Web of Science) were searched and a total of 5,138 titles and abstracts were reviewed. Studies that examined the association between a classroom-based dynamic seating intervention and at least one academic-related outcome in school-aged children or adolescents were included. A best-evidence synthesis and narrative approach was implemented to synthesize the evidence. Thirteen studies published between 2003 and 2017 were identified that met the inclusion criteria for the review. Results suggest there is some evidence that classroom-based dynamic seating interventions may have positive effects on the in-seat behavior, academic engagement, and attention of school aged-children and adolescents, predominantly those with attention difficulties. It is currently unclear whether dynamic seating has positive effects on students' on-task behavior, disruptive behavior, memory, concentration, or academic achievement. No intervention was found to have a detrimental effect on academic-related outcomes. The findings come from low to moderate quality studies (M = 60.62%; SD = 10.44). Classroom-based dynamic seating may be a simple, effective health strategy to reduce students' static sitting time without compromising student learning and academic performance. The current interventions need to be replicated with larger, adequately powered RCT designs, valid and reliable outcome measures, and assessment of intervention fidelity.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".